Does anybody have a feeling as to who will head up the Republican Party of Virginia now that Kate Obenshain Griffin is stepping down? Any ideas as to who should lead the party, who shouldn’t, or at least an ideological direction they’ll go in? I forecast they’ll elect somebody even farther to the right than Griffin, carrying on that proud tradition among Virginia Republican elites of being totally and cluelessly out of the mainstream.
The best thing for them to do is wait. Let the Vice-Chair fill in temporarily. Wait at least a month for local committees to meet and do some soul-searching. The members of the state committee really ought to go back to their local and district committees for a serious debate about the future direction of the party. Much better to have that debate before electing a new chair than afterwards. Let the candidates for the chairmanship emerge from the results of those debates and discussions.
Posted by Jack on 14 November 2006 @ 11am
Any ideas as to who should lead the party, who shouldn’t, or at least an ideological direction they’ll go in?
I’d pick a “fiscal” conservative, one that believed firmly in the separation of church and state, and who thought the marshal/newman amendment is an abomination that never should’ve been. You know- a real Republican. Does that person exist? In Virginia? Probably not.
Who will they pick? Probably some ignorant moron further to the fringe. Maybe they can find someone who “speaks in tongues” and “handles poisonous snakes” on Sundays. They’d probably fit in just fine with that party.
Posted by TrvlnMn on 14 November 2006 @ 11am
I’d pick a “fiscal” conservative, one that believed firmly in the separation of church and state, and who thought the marshal/newman amendment is an abomination that never should’ve been. You know- a real Republican. Does that person exist? In Virginia? Probably not.
I know many of these people. They’ve been so marginalized that they’ve basically been chased out of the party. Some of ‘em were long-time party leaders in their regions, and they represent a great deal of historical memory and experience for the party. But with extremists running the show — like Albemarle’s chair, Keith Drake –the extent of their involvement is showing up and voting, and even then I don’t expect that all of them are actually voting for Republicans at this point.
It’s a shame to see, mostly because these are smart, good people who should be involved in our political process. OTOH I’m happy to see it, because so long as these individuals are marginalized, we Democrats are assured of regaining the majority in Richmond.
Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 14 November 2006 @ 11am
In Kansas, a number of prominent moderate Republicans switched and ran as Democrats this year. One description of the situation there is that there are three parties: the Democrats, the moderate Republicans, and the conserative Republicans. (References here and here.) I recognize a certain similarity to Virginia politics; does anyone think that could happen here?
Certainly the Virginia conservative wing hasn’t gone nearly as far as their Kansas counterparts on issues like evolution and abortion (instead sticking mostly with anti-tax absolutism), but I’m not convinced that issues are the most important factor. The complete marginalization of longtime experienced legislators may be more significant.
So far we’ve only seen retiring legislators come out in favor of Democratic successors (such as Dillard’s endorsement of Marsden), but I’ll be interested to see how things develop, especially if the Dems continue to pick up seats.
Posted by Jim E-H on 14 November 2006 @ 1pm
I’d pick a “fiscal” conservative, one that believed firmly in the separation of church and state, and who thought the marshal/newman amendment is an abomination that never should’ve been. You know- a real Republican. Does that person exist? In Virginia? Probably not.
Sure they do. They’re just not Republicans.
Sorry, couldn’t resist… ;-)
Posted by Jim E-H on 14 November 2006 @ 1pm
Now that he can drop the pretense of not living in Virginia, how about Rick Santorum?
Posted by Dan Kachur on 14 November 2006 @ 1pm
Clueless= Delay, Santorum, Allen, Kilgore, NcDonnell, Marshall, Newman. Would make a hell of a Virginia Republican leadership team.
Posted by Skyline on 14 November 2006 @ 4pm
Fiscal conservative, social moderate republican right here *waves to the crowd*
Posted by cvillejosh on 14 November 2006 @ 8pm
My suggestion was Jim Gilmore
http://www.spankthatdonkey.com/spankthatdonkey2/2006/11/14/party-chair.html
I think Dickie Cranwell stuck it to the Pubs this time around… and is looking forward to doing it again….
Then again, my job is just to take notes, and put up signs :-)
Posted by Spank That Donkey on 14 November 2006 @ 10pm
Sure they do. They’re just not Republicans.
Yep. And that’s another irony.
Posted by TrvlnMn on 15 November 2006 @ 12am
I think what you mean is that I’m not psychic.
I wrote this blog entry at 10:52am yesterday, just 19 minutes after you mentioned that Gillespie was merely interested.
Personally, I’d rather see my friend Chuck Smith head up the party. He’s a smart guy and I think he’d do a good job. Gillespie can offer nothing to the RPV that it needs.
Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 15 November 2006 @ 2pm
Chuck Smith would make a fine RPV Chair.
As for the post — you could have updated. :-)
Posted by Jim Hoeft on 15 November 2006 @ 3pm
Thankfully, I put together an entire website to make your post as widely available as possible. :)
Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 15 November 2006 @ 3pm
Yes you did. Congratulations.
But I was serious at the same time too…it’s a technological marvel that you should be proud of. But it is also a “Death Star” that you’ve created at the same time.
Actually, I’m referring to your post from yesterday evening on what you call a decline, but I would call a dilution, of the blogosphere.
In many ways, the aggregator perpetuated some of that, don’t you think?
Posted by Jim Hoeft on 17 November 2006 @ 10am
You’re absolutely right about that, Jim.
I never thought of it in those terms.
By giving any blog an instant audience, I made it possible for blogs to gain an audience without doing any of the legwork that used to be a proving ground. It’s kind of like letting people on the ballot without getting their 125 signatures: if you’re not up to the task of getting those signatures, you probably shouldn’t be on the ballot.
Well.
I suck.
Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 17 November 2006 @ 10am
Hardly.
Not to get too nostalgic, but it was a challenge in 2004 trying to get noticed. It required emailing Chad and Jim Bacon. Working on format. Ensuring I knew how to ping, create my Atom and RSS feed, etc.
Now, it’s as easy as creating an account and stating an opinion.
The democratization of the blogosphere. Interesting. I wonder what lessons we can learn through this process for the political theater we witness every day?
Posted by Jim Hoeft on 17 November 2006 @ 11am
I wasn’t being facetious in my response — I really think you’re onto something. Though I’m glad to see the technological hurdles removed, I think you’re right that it’s not necessarily to the collective (or even individual) advantage to provide people with an instant audience.
Seems I’ve got a tiger by the tail here. :)
Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 17 November 2006 @ 11am
21 Comments